[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 579 Introduced in House (IH)]
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 579
To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit certain increases in
fees for military health care.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 19, 2007
Mr. Edwards (for himself and Mr. Jones of North Carolina) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed
Services
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit certain increases in
fees for military health care.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Retirees Health Care
Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Career uniformed service members and their families
endured unique and extraordinary demands and sacrifices during
the course of a 20- to 30-year career in protecting freedoms
for all Americans.
(2) The extent of these demands and sacrifices is never so
evident as in wartime, not only in today's Global War on
Terrorism, but also during the last 6 decades of hot and cold
wars when today's retired service members were on continuous
call to enter into harm's way when and as needed.
(3) The demands and sacrifices are such that few Americans
are willing to accept them for a multi-decade career.
(4) The primary offset for enduring the extraordinary
sacrifices inherent in a military career is a system of
extraordinary retirement benefits, including health care
coverage considerably better than that afforded civilian
workers, that a grateful Nation provides for those who choose
to subordinate much of their personal life to the national
interest for so many years.
(5) Many private sector firms are curtailing health
benefits and shifting significantly higher costs to their
employees.
(6) One effect of such curtailment is that retired service
members who work for such employers are turning to use of the
TRICARE coverage they earned by their military service.
(7) In some cases, civilian employers establish financial
incentives for TRICARE-eligible employees to use TRICARE rather
than the civilian employers' coverage.
(8) While the Department of Defense has made some efforts
to constrain TRICARE program costs, a large part of the
Department's effort is to shift a larger share of cost burdens
to retired service members.
(9) The cumulative increases in enrollment fees,
deductibles, and co-payments being proposed by the Department
of Defense far exceed the 33-percent growth in military retired
pay since the retired members' fees were established 11 years
ago.
(10) The beneficiary cost increases being proposed by the
Department of Defense fail to recognize adequately that career
service members paid enormous in-kind premiums through their
extended service and sacrifice.
(11) A significant share of the Nation's health care
providers refuse to accept new TRICARE patients because TRICARE
pays them significantly less than commercial insurance programs
and imposes unique administrative requirements.
(12) The significant majority of the savings the Department
of Defense associates with the proposed fee increases is
expected to come from deterring a large portion of TRICARE
beneficiaries from using their earned military health benefits.
(13) The Department of Defense has chosen to count the
accrual deposit to the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible
Retiree Health Care Fund against the Department of Defense's
budget, contrary to the amendments made by section 725 of
Public Law 108-375.
(14) Department of Defense leaders have reported to
Congress that counting such deposits against the Department of
Defense's budget is impinging on other readiness needs,
including weapons programs, an inappropriate situation which
section 725 of Public Law 108-375 was intended expressly to
prevent.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Department of Defense and the Nation have a
committed health benefits obligation to retired uniformed
service members that exceeds the obligation of corporate
employers to civilian employees; and
(2) the Department of Defense has many additional options
to constrain the growth of health care spending in ways that do
not disadvantage beneficiaries and should pursue any and all
such options rather than seeking large fee increases for
beneficiaries.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON INCREASES IN CERTAIN HEALTH COSTS AND
RESTRICTIONS ON HEALTH BENEFIT ADJUSTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF
THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.
(a) Prohibition on Increase in Charges Under Contracts for Medical
Care.--Section 1097(e) of title 10, United States Code, is amended in
the last sentence--
(1) by striking ``during the period beginning on'' and
inserting ``after''; and
(2) by striking ``, and ending on September 30, 2007''.
(b) Prohibition on Increase in Amount of Cost Sharing Requirement
Under Pharmacy Benefits Program.--Section 1074g of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end of subsection (a)(6)(A)
the following: ``After September 30, 2007, the dollar amount of a cost
sharing requirement (whether established as a percentage or a fixed
dollar amount) may not be increased.''.
(c) Prohibition on Increase in Charges for Inpatient Care.--Section
1086(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``during the period beginning on April 1, 2006, and ending on September
30, 2007''.
(d) Prohibition on Increase in Premiums Under TRICARE Coverage for
Certain Members in the Selected Reserve.--Section 1076d(d)(3) of title
10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``During the period
beginning on April 1, 2006, and ending on September 30, 2007'' and
inserting ``Beginning on April 1, 2006''.
<all>